About your Search

20121118
20121118
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
very critical of u.n. ambassador susan rice. you were critical in tv appearances right after the attack on september 11th. let's listen to that. >> either ambassador rice was deliberately misleading the american people or she showed and demonstrated such a lack of knowledge and sophistication that she shouldn't hold that position anymore. >> now, during friday's hearing, david petraeus, and we'll get to other incidents -- other news with david petraeus later, but david petraeus basically said he knew it was a terrorist attack and that those points were taken out of susan rice's talking points. so do you -- do you feel differently about susan rice now? >> no, first of all, as far as general petraeus, what was clear was that the intelligence community had this right, and they put together talking points, and somewhere after it left the intelligence community, some way in the administration there was language taken out. susan rice, i would hope if she's going to go on national television, is going to rely on more than unclassified talking points. she has -- >> but if the information wasn't
were taken out of susan rice's talking points, so do you -- do you feel differently about susan rice now? >> no, first of all, as far as general petraeus, what was clear was that the intelligence community had this right and they put together talking points and somewhere after it left the intelligence community, some way in the administration there was language taken out. susan rice, i would hope if she's going to go on national television is going to rely on more than unclassified talking points. she has -- >> but if the information wasn't in the talking points, what is she supposed to do. >> well, as u.n. ambassador she had access to all the classified information from the state department. she certainly could have gotten a classified briefing and would have sat dowational security council and known that those talking points had been watered down and could have -- she left a clear impression this was a spontaneous demonstration based on the video and as president obama said, don't blame susan rice because she had nothing to do with benghazi then why did they send her out as the rep
with this term that could be fed to the public. susan rice said that this was what she was cleared to use when she spoke by television a few days after the attack. >> some people are calling this a cover-up, including white house aids of covering it up, someone removed the terror link from the talking points that was initially handed out. a did that happen, and if it did happen, why? >> how in this process of removing the specific names of these extremist groups including al qaeda affiliate, a local liberal group, was there any one individual or one agency that did this? this went through an interagency process in washington 1/2. it had to be signed off by various members of the white house, members of the nfc. the only words they changed along with the state department was changing the words to diplomatic facility in the -- from the mission. and so they had nothing to do with the intelligence assessment at all. so there's still some question of exactly where in this process that the names were changed to the more generic reference to terror. >> you're not in new york city, that skyline behind
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)